But I think offensiveness is a common trait among human beings. — NOS4A2

What properties of an explanation are missing from "neurons firing seem to cause what we experience as thoughts"? — Isaac

If I open a door, this action, shows that I believe there is a door there. — Sam26

There are bosses, fellow workers, and underlings who fall into that category. — Frank Apisa

The notion of unearned income is fundamentally flawed because income is never unearned. — NOS4A2

The coherence is not logical?? What then? The relations between members of the family, are they internal or external? — Pussycat

According to Wittgenstein, "propositions show the logical form of reality", this is what I'm looking at here, whether it is so. — Pussycat

3. Augustine, we might say, does describe a system of communica-
tion; only not everything that we call language is this system. And one
has to say this in many cases where the question arises "Is this an
appropriate description or not?" The answer is: "Yes, it is appropriate,
but only for this narrowly circumscribed region, not for the whole of
what you were claiming to describe."
It is as if someone were to say: "A game consists in moving objects
about on a surface according to certain rules . . ."—and we replied:
You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You
can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those
games. — Philosophical Investigations — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, companies can maintain privacy on certain issues and can mislead and manipulate us, but the 'rules of the game' are largely transparent and the playing field in full view. — Baden

So, yes, they might fuck around a bit with our data but they won't deliberately give us the wrong result when we search for a cake recipe. In other words, the contours of the trust landscape are well-defined. — Baden

I don't understand what you mean by 'coherence' as that is applied to language. — Pussycat

Governments are pushing legislation that impedes on citizens' constitutional rights for a virus that barely ranks above the common flu. — Tzeentch

One theory that interests me is that global banking was on the verge of collapse just before this pandemic...but I'm not in a position to know whether that is true. — Chester

Companies are even more predictable than the weather as long as you know what feeds the bottom line. — Baden

3. Augustine, we might say, does describe a system of communica-
tion; only not everything that we call language is this system. And one
has to say this in many cases where the question arises "Is this an
appropriate description or not?" The answer is: "Yes, it is appropriate,
but only for this narrowly circumscribed region, not for the whole of
what you were claiming to describe."
It is as if someone were to say: "A game consists in moving objects
about on a surface according to certain rules . . ."—and we replied:
You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You
can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those
games. — Philosophical Investigations

It seems to me, that because we are trustworthy, we can only deal with Mr thing in a trustworthy manner. If we are not trustworthy from Mr Thing's POV, then we are not trustworthy. I think that means that we cannot even try to change the person against their will. Cannot, that is, without changing ourselves in the other direction, and becoming untrustworthy.

But people can change, at least. — unenlightened

Information can be entirely meaningless, utterly devoid of significance, sheer gibberish - it would nonetheless be information. The OP is no doubt trying to milk semantics from information. But it's a mostly dead end. — StreetlightX

Turning back to information, semantics doesn't matter for the mathematical theory of information, but it is what motivates its applications. — SophistiCat

But if you are saying you trust things more than people, then you yourself are using the same term and making a comparison in the same terms. — unenlightened

I think it's useful for folks not Americans to remind themselves that in the US there are no "mistaken" elections. — tim wood

Or is there another difference? Every day the sun rises, and the postman delivers. I can imagine a theory or two of physics and psychology/biology that would lead me to have more confidence in the sun than the postman. But as to it not meaning the same thing to say I trust them both, I don't see it. — unenlightened

We should apply reason to know the difference. i.e. that habit is not always borne of conscious reasoning is not a justification for not applying conscious reasoning to it, and when we do, we see habit is largely a matter of trust and largely within our control. — Baden

There's no fundamental dichotomy there. — Baden

In the final case above, the instantiation of habit (fixed behaviour) occurs as a reflection of and in response to the physical world's fixed nature and that's not something that normally needs to be questioned. But habit can and does appear at every level in different ways. Also, further to the above, we can get our wires crossed and either grant trust on an irrational presumption or withhold it on an irrational expectation. And so we move from the descriptive to the normative. Why should we trust X? And the (easier): Why should we not trust X? — Baden

For a lot of people, the answer seems to be "strength" and I think that's the wrong answer, not only because strength is often confused with stubbornness, arrogance, fecklessness, aggressiveness etc. but because we need our political leaders to work for us and "strength" is the domain of warriors not servants. We need something more inclusive. Any ideas? — Baden

Well, if you get to call a mistake in journalism fake news.. — tim wood

I’m sure you’ll think of something. — NOS4A2

I could see a taxonomy of trusts identifying negative and positive aspects to trust in each embedded context to which a form of trust applies, but I suppose the simple answer to the conundrum is that we should selectively, critically, and appropriately apply trust/mistrust. Selectively, in that we eschew a naive mistrust of everything and accept that trust is sometimes both good and necessary. Critically, in that when we do apply mistrust, we do so in accordance with reason. Our mistrust should be warranted. And appropriately, in that we apply mistrust of the right degree, of the right scope, and at the right level. — Baden

To relate all this to the philosophical tradition, Hume's scepticism declares that there is no reason to expect the world to continue in the orderly causal way that it has in the past; but we trust that it will. — unenlightened

The bag of rocks doesn't convey the fact that it's a bag of rocks and not a strawberry pie? Then how do you know it's not a strawberry pie? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I know. It's a tragedy that requires competent philosophical guidance. Thanks for being there when we need you! :scream: — jgill

…but no one seems to understand what its authors are on about. — StreetlightX

You are informing me of something, but you are wrong. What you offer as information is disinformation. But being wrong does not change the number of words you have written, any more than calling what I have written 'subjective' changes the information I have given. — unenlightened

Information increases as order decreases. — unenlightened

Mathematics evolved over millennia and foundations are fairly recent. — jgill

As we look at money, which is a social construct around trust, need, necessity for the cogs of society to work etc. — Christoffer

But they are indeed different versions of the same concept and the concept is the core we need to discuss. — Christoffer

Exactly, but I think that's the thing here, trust is need, is a necessity, is a contract. — Christoffer

Can we trust them to do their best to be moral against their customers? Yes. — Christoffer

So the core is the trust of a child that relaxes completely into the arms of an adult, with no consideration of negative consequences - being crushed or being dropped. — unenlightened

We used to believe in the freedom of the web, until the pedophiles spoilt it for us. — unenlightened

We all understand that thou shalt not lie. — Hanover

I think I touched on that here: "There is also an element of sorge that connotes something almost like 'anxiety,' which relates to Heidegger's conception of dasein as always looking ahead of itself." So no, not complete separation. — Wolfman

I'll take that under consideration since you obviously have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. — jgill

I don't want to get into a mere terminological dispute, but trust is not a firm belief. — unenlightened

But by trust I really mean the absence of doubt, not even wondering if there is a sniper somewhere across the road. — unenlightened

First you asked, "why did he have to call it care?" (emphasis mine), which is something different than needing to "understand what 'care' means," as you're saying now, MU. We can understand what care means without having to know why he called it care. — Wolfman

I can also know what a capybara is without knowing the etymology of the word (I don't). In any case, both of your questions are answered now. — Wolfman

I think getting hung up on the terminology itself is besides the point, because Heidegger just needs to call it something to, as you say, "avoid mediation through given terms or concepts." — Wolfman

So what level of trust is enough for a functioning society? Do you trust scientists? Do you trust hospitals? Do you trust your mechanic not to tamper with the breaks? The building blocks around trust are many more than "if there's a chance of abuse, there will be abuse". — Christoffer

We can't get rid of the risk of abuse without losing freedom, so we can only minimize it. Repercussions to companies conducting such abuse, risk of closure, legal actions etc. Alongside that the risk of the business losing the trust of the customers which is a major part of having a business running. Risking that trust is not a good business strategy and doing so requires extreme measures that could be even riskier. — Christoffer

Do you guys not walk down streets or buy stuff in shops? Of course you all do. So at every point you put your trust in others. — unenlightened

I switch the light on trusting that it has been wired up so it doesn't give me a shock or set fire to the house. We need to trust. therefore we need to be honest. — unenlightened

I'm saying we all depend for our lives on the decency of strangers and neighbours. — unenlightened

In essence, the larger the corporation, the heavier the fall. If financial well-being is their concern, a major blow to trust would be a major blow to financial well-being. The more a company relies on trust in their business, the worse the consequences of trust abuse. — Christoffer

That's why we always have to review these companies, that's why it's so important with things like whistleblowers, protection of them, and company practice transparency. — Christoffer

There isn't much gain to abuse such a marking system for their searches and they would be praised for battling the post-truth era problems of information. — Christoffer

You can talk about infinities all you want to. But you cannot produce one. For you to produce something that would go on forever, you yourself would have to live forever to do it. That's the whole point. — h060tu

Customers want to trust a company and the company needs the customer's trust. Failure to comply results in failure of the business. — Christoffer

Anarchy depends upon it absolutely. — unenlightened

Care is used by Heidegger in a purely ontologically existential manner and has nothing to do with caring, or worrying, as we would say in English. Care doesn’t refer to experiences because it’s a completely formal structure. It is devoid of any experiential content. — Wolfman